User talk:LesEnfantsTerribles
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the File:LiaraT 104.png page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SpartHawg948 (Talk) 14:59, May 10, 2010 Welcome to the ME Wiki! What the title says. And I'm sure you recognize my name *_^ -- Fiery Phoenix 12:36, October 3, 2010 (UTC) A few thing "Grow up, child. Now you're just being stubborn and infantile. All supposed subjectivity has been removed. Has your ego now been sufficiently fed". Well that was...offensive to say the least. Frankly I don't know how to respond to that. You were edit warring over something that stated exactly the same thing, and then you proceed to insult me, not once, not twice, but three times in the same sentence. Which is a bannable offense here. Both things say exactly the same thing and switching one thing for something that is equally acceptable is also not something that is looked highly upon. Frankly the original version says what is presented and I don't have a problem with it. If you keep persisting on this, I will not hesitate to ban you as well as we have gone on well past edit warring. Both versions say the same thing and are equally acceptable, and I'll ask you to please stop edit warring before further actions need to be taken. Lancer1289 20:09, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :"I contest the assertion that the content of both edits are identical, as what I have written is entirely objective. Why can you not see this? Or, are you on some kind of power trip? Think hard.)" This isn't a power trip as again both versions are equally acceptable and present the same information. I will ask you one last time to stop otherwise further action will be taken. Also I can take that as a further insult. Lancer1289 20:17, December 5, 2010 (UTC) After taking some time to review the dialogue, in great detail and the context of the edits, I still say thy say exactly the same thing, given what Liara states in the Renegade option of the dialogue. The only thing you changed was wording not the meaning, and they say exatly the same thing. Since you have now insulted me on three counts and you were edit warring, even after being warned of it, you have now been blocked for the perscribed time. Lancer1289 20:55, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :Lancer just barely beat me to undoing your edit. Two admins are disagreeing with your assertions here. Perhaps it's time to rethink your position? While I personally would not have enacted a ban quite so swiftly, I do at the same time fully support the ban that has been enacted against you, and strongly suggest you use this time to consider site rules and policies, as well as the efficacy of actually communicating with the admins through means such as talk pages. SpartHawg948 20:58, December 5, 2010 (UTC) I can't believe that the pair of you think that describing Liara's actions as a "selfish betrayal" is not subjective. Is English not your first language, or something? Oh well. I suppose little boys have to enjoy their power.LesEnfantsTerribles 21:00, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :I never said I don't find it subjective. It does come from the game though, so I'm capable of living with it. Ass you would have seen if my undo had gone through, my problem was that your edit did not read well at all. The language was forced and artificially contrived. It took a decent paragraph and really made it clunky. If you'd been willing to communicate with people and perhaps work out a compromise, I likely would have been your biggest supporter. :And yes, English is my first language. Though I must point out, I am not a little boy, and as my prior comment clearly shows, this is not me enjoying my power. Let's avoid the snide comments and assertions, shall we? We're all grown-ups, right? No need to try and belittle people. SpartHawg948 21:04, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict)Considering Spart and myself are both over 21, I have to say little boys is just adding a further insult on top of the ones you have already done. This is not a power trip on for either of us. You just can't seem to stop with the insults here, and since you are saying that I have to "grow up", perhaps you need to take your own advice given what you said in your comment above and in your edit summaries. We don't need that kind of language here as we are all adults so is it so hard to communicate like adults? ::As to the language comment, considering he was in the Air Force, and now in the Reserves, I have to say that English is his primary and first language, same as mine, although I didn't serve in the military. So unless there is something I don't know about Spart's education, I would have to say that English is our first language. But All you did was change the wording, not the meaning, and that doesn't do anything. Both edits say the same thing. Lancer1289 21:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC) I must also say that initially, as shown in my first comment, I was reluctant to enact a ban, just coming into the situation and being generally reluctant to ban unresponsive edit war-ers. However, having reviewed the proceedings, your own language towards other users, and the content on this very page, I'm left with the conclusion that the ban was most certainly called for. I'll add etiquette to the list of things I'd recommend you consider during the ban. Comments like "(Grow up, child. Now you're just being stubborn and infantile. All supposed subjectivity has been removed. Has your ego now been sufficiently fed?" are absolutely uncalled for, and would itself have resulted in a rebuke even if the edit warring were taken out of the picture. SpartHawg948 21:18, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::You're accusing me of being unwilling to communicate with others, when your colleague responded to my justified edits with single-word answers? Furthermore, I thought this wiki prided itself on absolute objectivity? How is that the case when this article contains information that does not accurately reflect what is presented in-game? It refers to Liara's actions as a "selfish betrayal" objectively, which is something that is forbidden elsewhere on this wiki. You cannot claim that this comes from the game, as it never appears in the dialogue. Shepard CAN accuse her of betrayal, but to state that this is the case regardless is ludicrous. I am astonished that you think that referring to Liara's actions as a "selfish betrayal" is acceptable. It's hypocrisy, and I think you moderators are drunk on your own power. Additionally, the grammar and language in my edit was vastly superior to the existing version. You're now attempting to cover yourself via pseudo-intellectualism. I think this website is very badly run and maintained, and you are extremely discourteous and inconsiderate. This is a clear example of nepotism, and is testament to just how poorly managed this website is. Good-day to you. LesEnfantsTerribles 21:23, December 5, 2010 (UTC) Additionally, I requested a compromise, and you were incredibly rude and dismissive when you responded with a single-word answer. You're a hypocrite. LesEnfantsTerribles 21:26, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :Woah dude, chill out. You've already been banned, this is all just insulting for insulting's sake. Rather, I'd recommended trying to apologize, because, you indeed have been pretty rude. Spart and Lancer were simply doing there jobs as admins and correcting an article. Perhaps you should walk away for a bit, chill out, and come back later to discuss things? Arbington 21:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::(edit conflict x2) Well this is rich. The user who leaves lovely comments and summaries like "Grow up, child. Now you're just being stubborn and infantile. All supposed subjectivity has been removed. Has your ego now been sufficiently fed?" accusing others of being "extremely discourteous and inconsiderate. What a joke. As you say, it's hypocrisy. ::Now, as to your main point. It is true that Shepard can accuse Liara of betrayal. And this is reflected in the article. It is never stated that Shepard does accuse her of betrayal, just that Shepard can. "On the other hand opposed to the previous dialogue option described, Shepard can accuse her of this selfish betrayal." Odd. Looks like it's already stated that this is optional. And yes, I am accusing you of being unwilling to communicate with others, but not accusing Lancer of the same. Why? Lancer attempted to open a dialogue on your talk page. At any point, you could have stopped undoing edits and responded. Edit summaries are insufficient to hammer out a compromise, which is why talk pages like this one exist. It takes two to communicate and compromise, and Lancer made an attempt. You did not. This page clearly shows it. You didn't even bother to respond till after your ban. So, thanks for stopping by, and maybe we'll see you after your ban is up. SpartHawg948 21:32, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::Had you ever considered the possibility that I may be unaware of what constitutes standard procedure on this website? That I was under the impression that edit summaries can be utilised in order to discuss edits being made to the page's content? I think you're being a pedant, are narcissistic, and seemingly in love with your own power. Additionally, the above quoted comment was in response to your colleague rather rudely responding to my offer of a compromise with a dismissive one-word answer. As I said, it's hypocrisy. :::Returning to my issues with the article's content, you are apparently incapable of understanding what my problem with it's content is. I am aware of the fact that it is clarified that said accusation of betrayal is optional. However, you cannot seem to grasp that it refers to Liara's actions as "selfish betrayal", regardless of Shepard's opinion. The phrase used is "this selfish betrayal", which results in this opinion being presented as an objective fact. Furthermore, the language and grammar utilised in this version of the paragraph is appalling, and it's laughable that you would believe otherwise. :::Do you now understand what my problem is? LesEnfantsTerribles 21:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::I think I do. I'd say your problem is your inability to recognize your own hypocritical actions while glibly accusing others of themselves being hypocrites. It's your inability to have a mature conversation without resorting to base personal insults. And it's your failure to read site policies and guidelines or to observe the day-to-day practices of the wiki. Ignorance of the rules is no defense, just as ignorance of a law is not sufficient defense if you break that law. We don't let vandals off the hook because they didn't read site policies and weren't aware of what standard procedure is on the website. ::::I do see the concern you were trying to address on the Liara page, and it is unfortunate that it was unable to be addressed. I for one am not sufficiently concerned with it to make changes, though if you had been willing to compromise and to do so in a manner that did not involve name-calling and verbal abuse, I'd have been happy to work with you. As it stands, your recent behavior has removed any chance of the ban being undone, so it looks like the article will have to remain "as is" for the time being. SpartHawg948 21:51, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::I agree with LesEnfantsTerribles. The wording of this sentence, "On the other hand , Shepard can accuse her of this selfish betrayal." is confusing and could imply that what Liara did was a 'selfish betrayal' regardless of how Shepard reacted or of anyone's opinion. It sounds quite objective. The problem is with the word 'this'. Even changing 'this selfish betrayal' to 'a selfish betrayal' would make it ten times better. --Jlb141 21:57, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::My word. So you recognise that my complaints are valid, yet you do not wish to act upon them out of spite? How delightfully juvenile. Grow up. In case you did not notice, I was willing to compromise, which is something that your colleague ignored. I find it astonishing that I am being accused of said conduct, when I was not the individual who initially acted with hostility and contempt. It's nepotism, pure nepotism. :::::Until Lancer was rude and dismissive toward me, I was actually very cordial. Again, I think you're attempting to cover your own tracks. LesEnfantsTerribles 22:02, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Mr. Terribles, it appears (to me anyway) that you are being argumentative and stubborn. A site admin has clearly stated that the change will not be made, and furthermore, arguing this by insulting not only both admins of this site, but indeed the site itself, you have made it so your ban will not be lifted. Please note that none of this was supposed to be a personal attack on you, this was just to deal with the issue of your edit. Any productive edits you would've made would have been very welcome, and indeed, once your ban is over, your edits will still be welcome. In my (brief) time here at Mass Effect Wiki, I have never known Spart nor Lancer to be guilty of abuse of power, and I don't believe they are now. If you could calm down, and discuss things rationally, without insults and "tantrums" perhaps a compromise could still be made. Arbington 22:13, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::(edit conflict) No, I recognize that you consider your complaints to be valid. As I noted previously (and you ignored), I do not consider them valid, but, as you clearly do, would be willing to compromise. I notice though that you overlooked any part of my comment that did not support your argument. As you so eloquently put it, "how delightfully juvenile". You are being accused of "said conduct" becuase... (big shocker here) you committed said conduct! What a quirky concept! Someone being accused of something they actually did! ::::Now, let me ask you: You claim to have been very cordial till Lancer supposedly was rude and dismissive of you. So I feel compelled to ask: when was I'' rude and dismissive of you before you began acting like a boor towards me? Because I can't recall any point in this conversation in which I was shown any cordiality. SpartHawg948 22:15, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::Hah. Now you're taking my comments out of context, and using them as a means to undermine and belittle me. Ridiculous conduct, especially from a supposed website administrator. Amusing that you choose to ignore the fact that I was not the individual who was intially rude and discourteous. This is also relevant to the reason as to why I am irritated with you, and the manner in which you maintain this website. Similar to how my opinions were rudely disregarded by Lancer, you made a conscious decision to ignore my complaints with the phrasing of the article's content, and were supportive of Lancer's appalling conduct. You were rude and condescending. That's why I am aggravated with you. It's nepotism, preferential treatment, and favoritism. :::Individual points made within your comment were ignored because I did not feel it worthwhile or necessary to comment on them. Furthermore, your grammar and sentence structure is appalling, which is what led me to erroneously believe that you are in agreement with my beliefs concerning the article's content. However, this is a distraction. The outstanding issue is that you believe that subjective statements belong in an article on this wiki, which is simply untrue. As pointed out by Jlb141 above, the phrasing is poor and misleading. LesEnfantsTerribles 22:32, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::To be fair, LesEnfantsTerribles' name calling didn't begin until after the mod denied his attempt to make a compromise with a very dismissive one word answer. And now, others are saying they would have been willing to compromise without the name calling? Um...what changed? You weren't willing before. To now say that you would have compromised after this has gotten out of hand is in poor taste. --Jlb141 22:49, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::(edit conflict)"My appalling conduct"? I have one edit summary that didn't go through all the way. It was supposed to say: "yeah no. that doesn't change anything it states the exact same thing same thing as the previous version". Instead my enter button, which I can't seem to avoid pressing sometimes, gets hit while I'm typing and only one part goes through, which apparently came off as rude. However it was you who took it to the next level with your next edit summary: "Grow up, child. Now you're just being stubborn and infantile. All supposed subjectivity has been removed. Has your ego now been sufficiently fed?". My summary came off as somewhat rude, given that the whole thing didn't go through, nd this ha happend before I should add, but you are the first to start with the insults and then the tantrum. Not once did I insult you or throw a tantrum, you did all of that. Given that I warned you a total of three times to stop edit warring and insulting other users, then you proceed to do so, how is my conduct appaling? I tried to resolve this by leaving the first message and asking you to stop. As stated above by Spart, you could have stopped at any time and discussed this, but you then proceeded to ignore the three warnings I gave you and edit it again. Only then did you respond and given your comments afterward, I think that says something. ::::I did not disregard your complains as I stated in one edit summary and in one of my comments, no two of my comments above. I took over 30 minutes to review the dialogue and the edits, while still maintaining a professional attitude, unlike you, and explained in two comments on your talk page why they said the same thing and politely asked you to stop. Then you proceeded to edit after I left my second message, when I asked you to stop again, to check and evaluate everything again, as I did already before, and you then edited again. I left a message clearly explaining why they said the same thing, and only then did you proceed to respond and then throw a tantrum and continue to be rude, impolite, and insult others. ::::Not addressing things left by others is not the quickest way to make friends especially when they ask valid questions and then you proceed to ignore them based on something that is completely ridiculous and that you took to a completely different level. You then continued to be rude and insulting, and again I think that says something about you. Lancer1289 23:03, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::*As to the edit conflict, that was still no excuse to do what he did. After seeing that my summary didn't go through, I can see how it came off as rude, but that was still no excuse for what he did. What's that about doing to others what you would like them to do to you. As to the compromise, if something is done properly, then usually compromises can be reached, however this wasn't done in the proper way and being ignorant of site policies is no excuse in this matter. Nothing has changed, as I fully expected to see a comment here after my second message about some type of compromise. That's what usually happens in cases like this. But then he proceed to throw a tantrum and insult people further. I still don't see any problem with how the article is currently. Lancer1289 23:03, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::That one sentence is written poorly and implies what Liara did was, with out a doubt, a selfish betrayal, due to the use of the word 'this' instead of 'a'. Using 'a' implies that it's just the opinion of the Shepard choosing that option; using 'this' implies that it's a betrayal regardless....that it's a fact. That's not very impartial. ::::I don't think the name calling was justified, but I do think his frustrations with the mods were. --Jlb141 23:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::You know what? Believe whatever you desire, and delude yourself into thinking that you are correct, because I really do not care any longer. I shouldn't be so concerned over such a poorly run and maintained website, moderated by individuals who treat the site's users with disdain and contempt. I'm done. LesEnfantsTerribles 23:17, December 5, 2010 (UTC) Jlb141, you want to know what changed to make me willing to compromise? (To quote: "And now, others are saying they would have been willing to compromise without the name calling? Um...what changed?") Here's what changed. First, I wasn't on. Then, I was. Once I logged on and saw what was going on, I came first to the ill-informed conclusion that perhaps the ban against L.E.T. had been done too rashly, and that we could work something out. Then, while reviewing the relevant information, I became aware of L.E.T.'s actions and words towards other users. I still was willing to compromise, but the name-calling is quite a bit of a turn-off. But you must concede, I can't broker a compromise if I'm asleep and not aware of what's going on here at the wiki, can I? And, once on and aware of the situation, I also can't broker a compromise if one of the parties has shown themselves so incapable of working with others as to result in a ban, can I? L.E.T.'s own behavior led to this. No one wants to have any more to do with a verbally abusive individual than they can help. So yeah, that's what changed. You'll note that I took no part in any of the activities leading up to the ban. A simple check of the history will confirm this. SpartHawg948 00:02, December 6, 2010 (UTC) ::::I'm treating the site administration as one entity when I made that claim. I don't care which mod said what. It just seems like now one mod is saying (after things did get ugly) that a compromise could have been made, even when the other mod was stubbornly against this, just to prove some kind of point. --Jlb141 00:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC) Convenient. Perhaps, as others have suggested, I should treat you and L.E.T. as one entity? But no, that wouldn't make sense, as you are two separate and distinct individuals. One can't possibly expect the two of you to behave identically or monolithically. The same is true of site administration. We are not Borg, or a hive mind, or robots. We react differently to different situations. That is what happened here. I was not trying to "prove some kind of point", merely speaking honestly, pointing out what ''could have happened had L.E.T. engaged in mature and rational behavior instead of edit warring and name calling. SpartHawg948 00:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC) :Now, LesEnfantsTerribles, perhaps I have been a bit vague before when addressing the appalling language you have been using towards other users. So let me get right to the point: The reason I keep bringing your language towards others to bear is because insulting other users is a violation of site policy. Lancer has not insulted you. I have not insulted you. You, on the other hand, have called other users the following: children, "stubborn", "infantile", "little boys", "drunk with their own power", pedantic, "narcissistic", "juvenile", and "rude and condescending". STOP. Refrain from directing further insults towards your fellow editors. If you cannot, the ban you face will be modified. It will be lengthened from two weeks to three months, and you will lose the ability to edit your talk page. You constantly call on others to grow up. I suggest you heed your own advice. No one else has felt the need to resort to childish name-calling. Stop now and attempt to engage in mature conversation. This is not a threat, merely a warning. You have now been informed of site policy, so you cannot plead ignorance. As we say in the service, "Shape up or ship out." SpartHawg948 00:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC) :Obviously you are two different entities, but you both represent the same single entity...the administration of this site. When one admin is vehemently against a compromise on an edit, this does reflect the administration as a whole. If I was L.E.T., I wouldn't necessarily expect another admin to give me a compromise when the first one was so dead set against it. Honestly, both sides have acted immaturely. --Jlb141 00:20, December 6, 2010 (UTC) ::No, if you want to get technical, we represent two different entities, or at the very least two different levels of the same entity. Lancer, as an administrator, represents site administration. I, on the other hand, as a Bureaucrat, represent (sorry if this sounds arrogant, but it is kind of the purview of a Bureaucrat), the site as a whole, or at the very least, the overseer of site administration. As such, should the situation warrant, I could override the actions of site administration, as said administration was put into place partially by me. However, L.E.T.'s boorish behavior has led me to the inescapable conclusion that the ban was warranted. So, if anything, I represent a third "side" in this discussion. Again, site administration as represented here is not monolithic, as you portray it to be. SpartHawg948 00:27, December 6, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, obviously I don't know how the leadership of this site is organized. How would I? But, I explained my perception (and I'm sure also L.E.T.'s) of how it does work and how this may have affected LET's and my views on things, especially this 'compromise' idea. I just found it a bit fishy that one admin swoops in and says 'we could have compromised' after the other was so dead set against it. *sighs* It doesn't matter anymore. Obviously no one wants to even allow the editing of one word to make that sentence seem less subjective. --Jlb141 00:57, December 6, 2010 (UTC) :::But again, the concept of one admin "swooping in" after the fact only applies if you hold to the concept that the administration of a wiki is a monolithic entity, and anyone who has had any prolonged experience with a wiki or any contact with the administration of a wiki can tell you, this is very rarely the case. It's never the case on larger wikis like Wookieepedia or The Vault, and it's still very rarely the case at smaller wikis. Basically, it only happens when there is only one admin for the site. As for how you (or L.E.T.) would know how the site is organized... well, you could always ask. I'm happy to answer any questions, as is Lancer, or any of the other more experienced editors, such as Commdor, Arbington, JakePT, Teugene, etc. SpartHawg948 01:03, December 6, 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, of course I know this now...my prior perception was different. I just don't understand why it's so difficult to edit something as small as this *shrugs* --Jlb141 01:07, December 6, 2010 (UTC) ::It's not. Editing something as small as this is easy, if (and this is where L.E.T. went astray) one is prepared to discuss their edit in a civilized manner and in the (more or less) proper venue (i.e. either the talk page for that article or a user talk page) if their edit is challenged by another editor. If, however, the first user insists on ignoring the concerns of others, simply undoing edits, insulting others, and ignoring attempts to start a dialogue, then that's where it becomes difficult. And L.E.T. chose to do all those things. SpartHawg948 01:12, December 6, 2010 (UTC)